D&D 5E In your Years of Gaming, How many Psionic Characters did you See played

[Maxperson]

It's not that I don't get how you're moving from A to B, I do, I just don't agree with you about what it means. Right now there are no spell-like psionic abilities that are separate from the casting rules. Every full caster psion ever designed for D&D has had access to a host of spells, or spell-like abilities if you prefer. So the Sorcerer in question is our only example of what a full-caster psion would look like in 5E, at least at this point in the design cycle. There's no other evidence of anything for what a full class Psion might look like, other than that it would use the psionic die mechanic.

Except that the Sorcerer in question isn't an example of what a full-caster Psion would look like. It's an example of what an arcane caster who has a bit of psionics to modify his arcane magic would look like.

Just because the psionic die sometimes removes the need for the usual trapping of arcane casting is evidence neither that a 'full psion' class would completely remove those requirements, nor that that class would somehow be created outside the current spellcasting rules.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that evidence has to show definitive proof of something. Your presence at a night club during the time of a shooting is evidence that you could be the shooter. It's not strong evidence by itself, but it is evidence, even if you are not the shooter.

The Psionic Soul power is evidence that psionics won't require components. It's just not absolute proof. Even the Mystic is evidence, even though it has been discarded, as it shows the thinking of WotC. 3e and 4e are similarly evidence. The lack of a single psionic power in the new UA requiring components is also evidence.

Taken in its totality, all that evidence is enough to convince me that a Psion, should it ever be made, won't need components for its powers.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I agree there’s evidence that WotC thinks component-less magic is an aspect of psionics worth exploring.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree there’s evidence that WotC thinks component-less magic is an aspect of psionics worth exploring.

I think after 20 years, they are done exploring it. They may be exploring component using psionics, but I don't believe that they will ultimately go in that direction. After 20 years of WotC doing it that way, and 44 years total of psionics with no components, I think that's pretty set in stone. It's a sacred cow as strong as(even if not as big in scope) as alignment. Nerd rage is strong with us.

 

[Lanefan]

For 5e, we just use a house-doctored Sorcerer for Psionics, with the optional Spell Points table from the DMG.

Ya know, that's actually not a bad idea.

Sorcerer as a class is kind of expendable anyway, and flipping it to spell points as a Psionicist gives it a nice unique mechanical distinction in play. Good one!

 

[Lanefan]

One middle ground open to them between components and no-components is the idea of a psionic focus item. This would be something a psion carries all the time and has to touch* to operate; without it her powers are weak but useable, with it her powers are fully functional.

* - this could mean by holding or wielding, or by wearing next to the skin, or whatever.

The item itself could be anything the player decides, within reason, as part of the character's background; but once set it's locked in stone, and should a psion ever lose it the character is kinda hooped until a new one can be generated - a process taking considerable time (at least a year, I'd say).

The item would not radiate magic or in any other way be detectable as anything other than a mundane item, except maybe by another psion.

 

[Fenris-77]

Except that the Sorcerer in question isn't an example of what a full-caster Psion would look like. It's an example of what an arcane caster who has a bit of psionics to modify his arcane magic would look like.

That's quite true. What it means is where we differ.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that evidence has to show definitive proof of something. Your presence at a night club during the time of a shooting is evidence that you could be the shooter. It's not strong evidence by itself, but it is evidence, even if you are not the shooter.

The only person here who is trying to prove something is you. All I'm doing is examining the evidence to see if supports your current assertion, and it doesn't. Not the way you want it to. I'm not trying to prove the opposite by any means.

The Psionic Soul power is evidence that psionics won't require components. It's just not absolute proof. Even the Mystic is evidence, even though it has been discarded, as it shows the thinking of WotC. 3e and 4e are similarly evidence. The lack of a single psionic power in the new UA requiring components is also evidence.

If that psion doesn't have any spell-like abilities, sure. That's what the evidence actually supports. My point was that the 'full psion' of yore tended to have rather a lot of spell like abilities. What we haven't seen in the latest design iteration is a version of those abilities that somehow escapes the orbit of components and the current magic system. Now, if WotC completely redesigns all the spells that used to make up a significant portion of the Psion ability set then you may get what you want. However, what we actually have evidence for isn't anything like that - a big potion of what previously used be the class skills don't have a design exemplar outside the current spell system. I thought I was being clear about my take on this, but perhaps I wasn't.

Taken in its totality, all that evidence is enough to convince me that a Psion, should it ever be made, won't need components for its powers.

And that's fine. It doesn't convince me of the same thing, but that's also fine. I wasn't trying to suggest that you won't get what you want, and I hope you remember from previous discussions that I want much the same thing. All I was suggesting is that the models in the most current UA don't show a clear path to that result.

 

[Nagol]

In 1e, they aren't particularly rare; I use the PHB rules for determining psionics and then allow players to opt out before rolling psionic strength. Psionic PCs tend to die slightly faster overall in my experience and many players (especially if they don't have tremendous Int, Wis AND Cha) don't want to risk psychic encounters and combat.

2e, as a player, they really weren't used except in Dark Sun. I offered them as a DM, but got no takers.

3e and 3.x, as a DM, I didn't use them. When the rules came out, I floated the idea of adding them to the group, but I didn't get unanimity.

 

[Maxperson]

If that psion doesn't have any spell-like abilities, sure. That's what the evidence actually supports. My point was that the 'full psion' of yore tended to have rather a lot of spell like abilities. What we haven't seen in the latest design iteration is a version of those abilities that somehow escapes the orbit of components and the current magic system. Now, if WotC completely redesigns all the spells that used to make up a significant portion of the Psion ability set then you may get what you want.

What redesign work on spells would they need to do?

 

[Hussar]

Sorry, this components rabbit hole is my mistake. Totally my bad.

The point I was trying to make was that if they bang out a set of psionic rules that are completely acceptable, except for one point, perhaps it would be better to accept it rather than drawing a line in the sand over a single issue. Whatever that issue happens to be. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think after 20 years, they are done exploring it. They may be exploring component using psionics, but I don't believe that they will ultimately go in that direction. After 20 years of WotC doing it that way, and 44 years total of psionics with no components, I think that's pretty set in stone. It's a sacred cow as strong as(even if not as big in scope) as alignment. Nerd rage is strong with us.

Much better. All perfectly valid beliefs.